Re: Hitler missed the boat!?! He didn't have any aircraft carriers ! ? ?
Tiger
> I think had he had one aircraft carrier, he could have won the war.
> Now just imagine 2 or 3, why the heck didn't he produce these?
>
> Why why why didn't this big beaked bohemian corporal have his navy
> create an aircraft carrier? I'm wondering if anyone knows an
> explanation for this...
>
> How could he not figure out that mobilizing a small air force is going
> to give him odds on his foes that they are going to have to devote
> resources to mitigate the threat of this mobile air detach?
>
> I say Hitler missed the boat! ...oh well, he's only human I guess...
Lets put this in historical context. Mr. Hittler was not elected till
1932. The Navy was limited by treaty & the Great Depression. Building a
Navy takes $$$ and time. Hitler's Admirals were planning for a war in
1946, not 1939.
Next, after building the Luftwaffe from scratch, they lack any carrier
experience. The UK, France, US, & Japan had years of a head start on
building a pool of naval aviators. So you have a lack of that special
skill along with the deck hands to make a carrier work.
Next problem is Geography. Germany has traditonally been a land power.
It's Navy has limited access from the Baltic. A weakness shown in the
demise of it's capital ships like Bismark & others. With Hitler in
Control of Mainland Europe by the Summer of 1940, the need to have a
carrier became a now issue. He could base planes in France, Norway,
Italy, Libya,Etc. and hit targets. The Germans also lack bases. The
other powers had large colonial outposts arround the world in strategic
spots to operate from. German holdings in Africa don't do much for you
in that reguard.
Last but not least, Hittler never planned for things to get as far as
they did. Poland was just supose to be a short deal without a fuss. HE
never planned for a 3 front war from Norway to North Africa to the coast
of the USA. Things moved to quick for your big navy plan. In retrospect
He would have been better off making more U-boats instead of a flattop.
Tiger
> On Jul 22, 1:11�am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 22, 1:03�am, LIBERATOR <nogeek...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think had he had one aircraft carrier, he could have won the war.
>>>Now just imagine 2 or 3, why the heck didn't he produce these?
>>
>>>Why why why didn't this big beaked bohemian corporal have his navy
>>>create an aircraft carrier? I'm wondering if anyone knows an
>>>explanation for this...
>>
>>>How could he not figure out that mobilizing a small air force is going
>>>to give him odds on his foes that they are going to have to devote
>>>resources to mitigate the threat of this mobile air detach?
>>
>>>I say Hitler missed the boat! ...oh well, he's only human I guess...
>>
>>He only wanted to occupy mainland Europe, so he didn't need carriers.
>>The German Navy under Hitler didn't get much funds or attention,
>>except for the Uboats and they
>>got massacred in the last stages of the war.
>
>
> No Joe, the U-boats wrecked havoc on Britain and had Doenitz 300 of
> them at any time in the N Atlantic would have won the war by 1940 by
> starving Britain and preventing a pre-D-Day invasion build-up. At any
> given time there were only around 100 boats in the water with the
> Fw-200 and the pirate raiders racking up huge tonnage of sunken
> ships.
>
> However, Britain cracked enigma and then the war turned over to the
> Allies with the destroyer escorts, better a/c with radar, defeat of
> the Condor, and even Doenitz's decision to divert around 50 boats at
> any given time to the S Atlantic.
>
> The KMS Graf Zeppelin was not finished (up to 80%) and so was used as
> a floating naval warehouse while the KMS Peter Strausser was scrapped.
> Goering also forbid a rival Kreigsmarine air arm, so that was that.
>
> The U-boat arm took tremendous losses in the last year of the war but
> new developments like the U-boat Types XXI, XXIII, and XXVI would have
> have turned the tide along with technologies like silent drive,
> stealth coatings, wire-guided torpedos, and the ability to stay
> submerged as opposed to running on the surface most of the time. But
> time simply ran out and very few of these boats got to trials while
> only 4 Type XXVIs were laid down.
>
> The Prufstand XII V-2 towed missile launchers were also delayed with
> only one launcher finished at Stettin with the other two only 65%
> completed. The Kriegsmarine hydrofoils were failures as well as the
> midget subs and explosive torpedo boats. The German S-boots instead
> racked up some good kills before the Kriegsmarine resorted to the
> eastern evacuations with over 2.2 million people moved in 1945 before
> capitulation.
>
> Rob
Nice topic but better placed at sci.military.naval &
rec.aviation.military.naval if you want imput...
Tiger
> On Jul 22, 11:31 am, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Today????????
> There are no more Uboats. Todays nuclear subs are much faster and can
> stay submerged much longer.
> The old Uboats couldn't even do 15 knots submerged. The nukes can do
> double that and stay submerged for 6 months.
>
>
Actually many nations including Germany still use deisel/electric subs.
While the cons you note are true, they have there pros. Mostly being
cost & stealth. Only the major navies can afford nucs & their support
facilities. A D/E boat is also hard to detect noise wise. LIke a Hybred
car, they make liitle noise on battery power.
Tiger
> WW2 German U-boat Speeds:
>
> Type XXIII: 10 surfaced, 13 submerged
> Type XXI: 16 surfaced, 17 submerged
> Type Xb: 16 surfaced, 7 submerged
> Type IXc: 18 surfaced, 7 submerged * 20 surfaced for IXd-1, 19
> for IXd-2
> Type VIIc: 17 surfaced, 8 submerged * 19 surfaced for VIIc/42
>
> Walter-Type boats:
>
> Walter boat V-80: 27 submerged
> V-300: 19 submerged
> Type XVII: 27 submerged (none saw action)
> Type XVIII: 27 submerged (not completed)
> Type XXVI: 25 submerged (not completed)
>
> Oh, and someone tell Joe that U-boats continue to exist, here is U-33
> with Angela Merkel:
> http://femalesoldiers.greyfalcon.us/pictures/mer10.jpg
>
> Rob
>
>
>
Now if only you guys could put this in the right newsgroup?
Visit sci.military.naval
Rob Arndt
Actually not a true statement about the nukes. The Israelis had the
Germans modify their torpedo tubes to be able to fire nuke-tipped
Popeye Turbo cruise missiles. Israel with the German- provided Dolphin
SSKs has a naval nuclear deterrent and offensive capability in their
region. The Germans could do theoretically the same thing with the new
silent Type 212s if they decided to go nuclear in the future...
Also, German fuel cell AIP is silent and safer than a reactor...
Rob
LIBERATOR
>
Jawohl!
LIBERATOR
> LIBERATOR wrote:
> > I think had he had one aircraft carrier, he could have won the war.
> > Now just imagine 2 or 3, why the heck didn't he produce these?
>
> > Why why why didn't this big beaked bohemian corporal have his navy
> > create an aircraft carrier? I'm wondering if anyone knows an
> > explanation for this...
>
> > How could he not figure out that mobilizing a small air force is going
> > to give him odds on his foes that they are going to have to devote
> > resources to mitigate the threat of this mobile air detach?
>
> > I say Hitler missed the boat! ...oh well, he's only human I guess...
>
> Lets put this in historical context. Mr. Hittler was not elected till
> 1932. The Navy was limited by treaty & the Great Depression. Building a
> Navy takes $$$ and time. Hitler's Admirals were planning for a war in
> 1946, not 1939.
Good points, but him being overconfident (as George Lucas implys) due
to all the miracles he did perform, he became shortsighted, and once
he initiated firing shots at Polocks (and he was right and they were
wrong), he should have been prepared for the worst possible outcome,
which would have been a major world war, and countrys as his foes had
aircraft carriers, and due to him not having them, he should have not
initiated drawing blood, til he was prepared to deal with the worst
possible outcome - fighting countries with aircraft carriers.
> Next, after building the Luftwaffe from scratch, they lack any carrier
> experience. The UK, France, US, & Japan had years of a head start on
> building a pool of naval aviators. So you have a lack of that special
> skill along with the deck hands to make a carrier work.
Good point, but the sole fact that the enemy countrys of Germany had
aircraft carriers, he himself should have produced them to meet that
threat. Both he and Goering had it in their heads that peace was going
to come about, yet had no valid data for this supposition, so Hitler
was a little sloppy in his handling of things. Overconfident - I think
he kept reflecting back to his battlefield days where he by miracle
survived bombs going off right by him that killed everyone else. This
got stuck in his head and he carried it and applied it to every
problem he dealt with - that he can't lose proven by his immortal fate
against bombs & bullets.
> Next problem is Geography. Germany has traditonally been a land power.
> It's Navy has limited access from the Baltic. A weakness shown in the
> demise of it's capital ships like Bismark & others. With Hitler in
> Control of Mainland Europe by the Summer of 1940, the need to have a
> carrier became a now issue. He could base planes in France, Norway,
> Italy, Libya,Etc. and hit targets. The Germans also lack bases. The
> other powers had large colonial outposts arround the world in strategic
> spots to operate from. German holdings in Africa don't do much for you
> in that reguard.
So then carriers would have been the most intelligent choice.
> Last but not least, Hittler never planned for things to get as far as
> they did. Poland was just supose to be a short deal without a fuss. HE
> never planned for a 3 front war from Norway to North Africa to the coast
> of the USA. Things moved to quick for your big navy plan. In retrospect
> He would have been better off making more U-boats instead of a flattop.
I agree, he had peace set in his mind that it was going to happen. But
still, once you fire a shot and initiate war, you must be prepared for
the worst case scenario, he didn't strategize this way. I really think
that just 1 aircraft carrier could have been the turning point of this
war. So long as this carrier had defending destroyers with it.
Tiger
I was refering to nuclear powerplants, not nuclear weapons.
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 22, 11:40 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > LIBERATOR wrote:
> > > I think had he had one aircraft carrier, he could have won the war.
> > > Now just imagine 2 or 3, why the heck didn't he produce these?
>
> > > Why why why didn't this big beaked bohemian corporal have his navy
> > > create an aircraft carrier? I'm wondering if anyone knows an
> > > explanation for this...
>
> > > How could he not figure out that mobilizing a small air force is going
> > > to give him odds on his foes that they are going to have to devote
> > > resources to mitigate the threat of this mobile air detach?
>
> > > I say Hitler missed the boat! ...oh well, he's only human I guess...
>
> > Lets put this in historical context. Mr. Hittler was not elected till
> > 1932. The Navy was limited by treaty & the Great Depression. Building a
> > Navy takes $$$ and time. Hitler's Admirals were planning for a war in
> > 1946, not 1939.
>
> Good points, but him being overconfident (as George Lucas implys) due
> to all the miracles he did perform, he became shortsighted, and once
> he initiated firing shots at Polocks (and he was right and they were
> wrong),
That makes you wrong, as well. Sept 1 1939 was an invasion of Poland
as an act of naked aggression.
> he should have been prepared for the worst possible outcome,
> which would have been a major world war, and countrys as his foes had
> aircraft carriers, and due to him not having them, he should have not
> initiated drawing blood, til he was prepared to deal with the worst
> possible outcome - fighting countries with aircraft carriers.
As of the early to mid 30s, which is the relevent timeframe for
being able to complete and place into service a carrier by, say,
1942,
there was no hint that aircraft carriers operating in the vicinity of
European waters would be as useful as battleships.
Moreover, as has been pointed out, Germany having to not only
start from a Zero point in terms of aircraft carriers in that
time, was compounded by the fact that, coming out of the naval
Versailles limits, Germany was well behind on every aspect of
modern naval hardware, from subs & destroyers, to heavy cruisers
and capital ships. That their pre war plans got one carrier
launched before the war started was pretty good work on their
part.
> > Next, after building the Luftwaffe from scratch, they lack any carrier
> > experience. The UK, France, US, & Japan had years of a head start on
> > building a pool of naval aviators. So you have a lack of that special
> > skill along with the deck hands to make a carrier work.
>
> Good point, but the sole fact that the enemy countrys of Germany had
> aircraft carriers, he himself should have produced them to meet that
> threat.
Given the performance of RN carriers against the German navy in the
first year of the war, the "threat" was not a serious one. During
that period, Germany destroyed two of the RN's best carriers,
the Courageous and the Glorious, at no cost to themselves.
And, in terms of the Graf Spee incident, the threat of Renown
& Ark Royal were more about the 15 inch guns on the former RN ship.
> Both he and Goering had it in their heads that peace was going
> to come about, yet had no valid data for this supposition, so Hitler
> was a little sloppy in his handling of things. Overconfident - I think
> he kept reflecting back to his battlefield days where he by miracle
> survived bombs going off right by him that killed everyone else. This
> got stuck in his head and he carried it and applied it to every
> problem he dealt with - that he can't lose proven by his immortal fate
> against bombs & bullets.
Whether or not any of that was accurate, none of it speaks to
the carrier issue at all.
> > Next problem is Geography. Germany has traditonally been a land power.
> > It's Navy has limited access from the Baltic. A weakness shown in the
> > demise of it's capital ships like Bismark & others. With Hitler in
> > Control of Mainland Europe by the Summer of 1940, the need to have a
> > carrier became a now issue. He could base planes in France, Norway,
> > Italy, Libya,Etc. and hit targets. The Germans also lack bases. The
> > other powers had large colonial outposts arround the world in strategic
> > spots to operate from. German holdings in Africa don't do much for you
> > in that reguard.
>
> So then carriers would have been the most intelligent choice.
No, lots of ocean going U Boats would have been the most intelligent
choice.
> > Last but not least, Hittler never planned for things to get as far as
> > they did. Poland was just supose to be a short deal without a fuss. HE
> > never planned for a 3 front war from Norway to North Africa to the coast
> > of the USA. Things moved to quick for your big navy plan. In retrospect
> > He would have been better off making more U-boats instead of a flattop.
>
> I agree, he had peace set in his mind that it was going to happen. But
> still, once you fire a shot and initiate war, you must be prepared for
> the worst case scenario, he didn't strategize this way. I really think
> that just 1 aircraft carrier could have been the turning point of this
> war.
Wow, thats really... insane and ignorant.
Considering that the Graf Zeppelin was going to operate about 40,
total, ME-109s and JU-87s, what could such a small handful of
nearly obsolete airplanes do *at sea* against the RN ? Uh huh.
> So long as this carrier had defending destroyers with it.
Which Germany also didn't have ocean going destroyers, as can be
seen by the fact that they NEVER sent their destroyers out with
any of their heavy ship raiding forces.
There was AbZero chance of a Battle of Midway in the European
Theatre during WW2. Even had it been possible, it wouldn't have
mattered, as the war at sea was all about trade
protection/interdiction. Give up that loony fantasy.
Andre
Keith Willshaw
"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4886C155...@hotmail.com...
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> WW2 German U-boat Speeds:
>
> Now if only you guys could put this in the right newsgroup?
> Visit sci.military.naval
>
Psst this was posted in sci.military.naval
Now who exactly appointed you as netcop ?
Keith
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
In addition:-
If Graf Zeppelin had accompanied Bismarck when the were intercepted in
the Denmark Straight she would either had to stay in company with
Bismarck or operate independently. In company she would have been a
natural target for Norfolk and Suffolk, if she operated
independently ... well an isolated carrier in bad weather with lots of
cruisers around?
Guy
Tiger
Only because I did the posting.
Andre Lieven
> If Graf Zeppelin had accompanied Bismarck when the were intercepted in
> the Denmark Straight she would either had to stay in company with
> Bismarck or operate independently. In company she would have been a
> natural target for Norfolk and Suffolk, if she operated
> independently ... well an isolated carrier in bad weather with lots of
> cruisers around?
Exactly. These ignorant of actual naval history fanbois simply fail
to grasp that no one is Europe was capable of creating a USN TF 38
fleet at all. Not in the 30s, or the 40s. As well as all European
powers of that time having much more pressing naval and non naval
military needs to spend all too scarce resources on.
One carrier in the European war wasn't going to win it. Even
Ark Royal, built and operated by the inventor of the aircraft
carrier, the RN, was hard pressed to score a lucky hit on
Bismarck at her last opportunity to do so.
Andre